S.M. GOURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 203, 26 August 1913, Page 6

S.M. GOURT.

(Before Mr: C. C. Kettle, S.M.) uxnEFF.xnr.D cases. Judgment wns riven, for the plaintiffs ffi the following undefeudod Sutherland and Co., Ltd., t. oiftini £5 7/5 (judgment for £i 7/3); toriau Flue Art Co. v. Kercmoana IoOTWI " (of Ratana), ffi; Cook and Co. v. P. A-:Ha£ . ley, f7 12/; John Bousie v.- K. Manton.. « 6/4; ■A.'R.D. Watsqu v. P. W;; BaWieloiv £12; Joseph Felts v. A. Aguew, IS/;-J«a« Preston v. Y. Davis, Jun..•■£! 3/1; HpM?,»jaCo. v. James Griffith, £10 17/5; Artnw «, Nathan, Ltd., v. H. L. Jennings, £9: W. Nightinpale v. William Wallace, ,&;:■l>: Jγ >• Pabst v. Mrs. A. McCorquodale, £11 W. V*-: KronCeld, Ltd.. v. F..Burrows, £4 5,-; Adtra _? ; and Co. v H.* Cooper ami Co.. £2: W l ' ll Crosiicr onn Sons »-. Critchficld and Co ; -"* - '14/3; Tellurides Proprietary, Ltd.. v. George Herbert' Parkinson, £1 ir>/10;, A. 13. St. . v. C. Johnstone, £1 10/: John Court. Lt<l., .*• , Robert Tindale, £5 Itt.'il; J. J. Crals, a --.... v. John W. Stockley, £ 1 IS/; Eaton Btos:T. "William Monkley, £7 12/4; Howard ana BV-. . keet v. D. B. Morrisson. £1 11/6; ~»- : ' Olesen v. Frederick V. Swift, £2 2/2; <-•*;- Hamlin and Co. v. E. W. Gray, f3O l/. Ilobertson Bros., Ltd., v. F. W. Little, t*i g 1/7; J. C. I'abst v. K. Crawford, .t6V.. :_■ Katon Bros. v. George Bunting, £3 . A QUESTION OF DAMAGES. EdwardChrisf-an Sorreson v.-KicharMsJ Wood. This was a claim for £10 for tomagei, to shelter trees and hedge by. a' fire. ; Tunks appeared' for-the lilaiutiil and w> Massey for tbe defence. It was expiame" that the liability for the fire was admltte". and it was merely a question of n»°S. "?•,'' nges. The defendant bad paid; 30/ into. Court, which was not accepted,. » T«l' claimed thirty trees had been destroyed! w, defendant only admitted seventeen, parties live at Kuraeo. '• . • - "\,i'<i<: ■ Mr. Kettle said it was a pity the ciseuj been taken to Conrt, Instead of telng setue? by the arbitration of a neighbour. A W-- , who burned bis neighbour's irecs accidentally was responsible. In most cases % inflamed damages were claimed. J « d S m ??' was given for the plaintiff for *":(!««■;■»•■.- amount paid into Court). Costs were allowed